bf v ff(91 Posts)
Just really wanted to open chat about the above cos I don't think bf is all that and ff isn't as bad is its made out to be my dd bf for few day then ff and she's fine!! Even my hv said studys about bf don't tell the truth cos money family support etc isn't taken into account ps no nasty comments on how am evil etc
Im so glad I breastfed my daughter after reading this thread. Breastmilk is an amazing thing.
She was EBF and went on to formula at ten and a half months. Formula is also a great thing.
But breast is undisputeably best.
And just as a little aside. I have lost almost a stone sincey son was born 3 weeks ago eating pretty much whatever I want. Breast feeding rocks! X
Personal choice. I breast feed personally but I know formula fed babies who have turned out great. I think if breast feeding is going to stress you out and make you uncomfortable and/or unhappy then it's probably not best for baby. X
This thread is hilarious.
I love it when people try to 'win' the bf v ff debate by saying they know people who were breastfed and are very ill, and the opposite for ff people. Nothing's guaranteed but it doesn't change the fact that BM is a substance which is better for baby (not being a twattybum there but that's fact) but like pps have said if BFing doesn't work out for you formula is a godsend alternative that will ensure you baby doesn't die of starvation.
I just love to picture a top scientist who has spent their lives doing BM research sittin in their lab reading mumsnet going "Oh fuck-a-doodle-do, it says here that Suzy from Lewisham was breastfed but gets eczema, whilst her mate Marie was formula fed and is super healthy. That blows my research out the bastard water!!!"
I am a bf fan! It's much better got baby and for mother too. If I had another 10 dc's i bf all of them.
That said I ff my ds, he's 12 now and is as fit as a fiddle, never ill, tall, slim, intelligent, handsome (I'm still besotted with him, lol). I did give him 2 wks of exclusive bf at the start though.
If you want to ff then do it, however if you can bring yourself to give the first few feeds so dc gets the colostrum that'll be even better.
It would be accurate but only a small part of the truth, because in that situation it is bf that is exposing the baby to the possibility of HIV transmission. It's just that the body has some mechanisms for reducing the risk. Certainly bf is safer than either ff or mixed feeding in those circumstances, but that's a separate issue entirely to the risk of HIV transmission.
I don't know about pre-existing infection. Let's hope so!
Would it be more accurate to say that BF protects against gut inflammation which reduces the likelihood of HIV transmission? So in the grand scheme of things FF in that case is safest, but BFing is safer than mix feeding.
But it does open up an avenue of research into the properties of BM in combatting HIV where there is a pre-existing infection?
None of this changes the fact that in that situation, the risk of HIV comes from breastfeeding, though. Which makes it inaccurate to claim that bf protects against HIV.
Yes of course I do! But like I said, in situations when the mother cant use formula full time, its advised not to use any at all. As for proteins, I have no idea, I think there needs to be a lot more research into it.
obviously in this country and many others which have clean water supplies and formula readily available, a mother would be advised not to bf. But in lots of places in the world it isn't possible to substitute formula
Moomins in the situation you describe, you know why there's a risk of HIV transmission don't you? It's the breastmilk. The body does seem to have some ways of reducing the risk in this situation, hence the proteins and the gut sealant properties, but nonetheless breastfeeding when HIV positive does not protect against HIV. Quite the opposite: it presents a significant risk of passing it on.
Oh, the new research does suggest possible neutralizing properties. It's early days but there might be some radical implications.
I remember reading a study about mix feeding when the mother has HIV and is unable to exclusively ff due to contaminated water/ Lack of money to buy formula etc it was advised not to use formula at all as it can cause the gut to become inflamed making it easier for HIV to be passed to the baby when bf.
so not so much bm having neutralizing propwrties, just that its easy to digest, doesnt cause the gut to inflame so less likely that HIV will be passed on.
No interest in this particular bunfight, but just thought the claim upthread about new evidence showing bf protects against HIV was a bit selective, to say the least, and needed further development. It's true that there has been some recent research showing that protein in breastmilk has some protective effect. But the fact is that even with the benefit of these proteins, breastfeeding whilst HIV positive is extremely dangerous. It is a method of transmission from mother to baby- WHO puts the rate at 10-20%. Of course, in many areas of the world formula feeding is even riskier because of poor sanitation, so HIV positive mothers are advised that bf is the safer option- a disgrace to our species, incidentally, that millions of women are put in a position where the feeding method with only a 1 in 5 chance of making the baby seriously ill is the least worst option.
So while there seem be some HIV neutralizing properties in breastmilk (and logic suggests surely there must be something otherwise the transmission rates could be way higher) it also remains a way in which babies are infected. Which is why HIV positive women who are able to formula feed safely are advised to do so. No discussion of the effects bf has on HIV is complete without this information.
Health visitors receive the same training for supporting breastfeeding as midwives and bf supporters. Why rubbish their knowledge when you haven't actually got a clue?
That was an interesting selective use of research in that article.
For example the PROBIT study showed that for every 25 babies breastfed there was one fewer GI infection. She could have said equally accurately that if every baby in the UK was breastfed there would be over 32,000 fewer GI infections and it would be the same. I think that is quite a significant reduction actually. The reality is that breastfeeding may or may not make a difference to an individual baby but makes a huge difference on a population level just like immunisation.
But really who on an individual basis cares how people feed their babies?
I personally care (partly because it is my job) that parents get the information they need to make the right choice for them. That parents who choose to breastfeed get accurate evidence based information and are supported to continue as long as they wish to breastfeed and that parents who choose to formula feed have the information and support to do so safely and in a way which reduces the risks but beyond that I don't care and on a personal level who does care.
Why do your friends/family/baby group acquaintances care how you feed your baby. Do they know your personal history? I kind of assume unless I'm told otherwise that friends have had the information and made the best choice for them.
I don't care anymore I know what I know and any1 else knows what they need to know. It used to matter cos of the crap I got from family/friends/ baby groups baby ps mum got ou of jail today made me think that's more a prob them how you feed your babies . As a side note iam sorry if I came across as mean etc
Both breast feeding and formula feeding have pros and cons. You do what's best for you and your baby
If you breast feed, fantastic! It you formula feed, brilliant! As long as the baby is fed and the mother isn't suffering mentally or physically then I really don't think it matters which you choose.
I really don't see why there is such a massive debate over the whole thing. It's pointless! Breast feeders are never going to change their minds and neither are formula feeders.
Why can't people just leave it at that?
I think the key message, which is often missed, is that while breast milk is best for babies, there's nothing really wrong with formula. It's not a binary issue - one isn't good while the other is bad.
Or would you have preferred us to link to her article earlier? There are hundreds of equally valid links out there, and given that the author has an agenda I would suggest there are more valid ones which say essentially the same thing.
Infant feeding studies are virtually impossible to carry out because of the number of variables. The results of the most reliable studies tend to indicate that BF has health benefits but short of extremely unethical studies involving identical twins we will never be able to prove it.
BFing has an emotional and sometimes physical cost associated with it which outweighs the health benefits to mother and baby. FFing poses potential health risks to the baby from contaminated formula or incorrectly prepared feeds. Neither is perfect.
Formula is never going to completely replicate BM, it would be crazy to say that it can, but it's a perfectly healthy and viable alternative.
????? I mentioned BF twice in reference to that article, once positively, once negatively?! And further down the thread I specifically acknowledged the downsides of BFing!
Just like you're selectively reading that article you are selectively reading this thread and that's not going to get anyone anywhere.
from that article:
''I wanted to understand how breastfeeding has come to be perceived as the holy grail of health and formula-feeding as the equivalent of giving a baby nicotine'' I don't ever hear folk saying that, this is rather ridiculous hyperbole, inflated language if you like
''we need to stop making claims that breastfeeding is the only choice for mothers who care about their children.'' who is the ''we'' that make these claims?
The author has a book to push
(Have delib not linked here)
Zoe, can you tell me more about the author of this article please? Why do you find her to be a particularly reliable authority on this topic? Have you read her book, and read through the scientific research that she references? Do you agree with her interpretation of the science?
Tell me something why didn't none of you mention what she said about bf ??
Do you really want me to deconstruct all those arguments?
No-one here has said FF is going to kill your baby. That author acknowledges there is some evidence that BM is better physically but also points out that at the end of a day it's a judgement call, BF has an emotional cost and we take risks every day that are equivalent to or greater than FFing. It's not saying that FF is as good, or better, just that it's a viable alternative. I don't see any argument against that!
You've provided a website that's sponsored by disney to back up your claims that FFing is ok. Brilliant, I'm completely swayed. I love disney and they are experts in infant feeding.
I shall completely dismiss all the other scientific surveys that shows all the amazing benefits of BFing.
http://www.babble.com/baby/benefits-of-breastfeeding-baby-formula-feeding/ can some1 read this ( it got be thinking )
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.